any provisions of this ordinance or the acts. that is where we talk about non- willful issues and where we are directing our vehicle for finding enforcement. we are choosing your commission to be the enforcement body to do that. we can choose any number of other ones, but we don't feel how to do enforcement on these particular items. this is where the thrust of the task force as non-woeful comes from. >> i agree with you that the task force can make that determination. they have one of two choices as a read this. you can either go the court or you can come to the ethics committee. and i heard your earlier statement about the only role that the ethics commission would have is that they would have to accept your finding as a matter of law and would just impose a penalty. no court -- if you said to enforce this determination there has been a violation, the judge might give some presumption to the agency, but he or she would make an independent judgment whether or not your determination was correct. coming up with some mechanism that

the proposed ordinance is consistent with this 2010 ordinance. this approach offers significant incentives and prohibits the conversion of existing housing to ensure that new student housing is built. this continues to be art primary crux of the recommendations. we are fine-tuning these recommendations to include some limited conversions. sros would be the only form of housing or we would recommend that conversions continue. our recommendation would be to allow conversion via conditional use authorizations. this is the same requirement for replacement of units converted to a tourist use. now we are recommending it be applicable to student housing. increasing incentives for the production of student housing. today, we are supporting the exemptions of this use from the requirements. in conversation with the mayor's office of housing, the mayor's office of housing would like a few modifications. they felt there was a need to shift the definition of what is to get housing. we support their recommendation. the primary emphasis is that it should not be

this was part of the underlying ordinance that was amended with this ordinance. but i think this plot -- applies in counter to our effort around reentry to ensure that those who have criminal records have are for synergy for employment and ways of getting out of -- criminal records have an opportunity for employment and ways of getting out of their criminal past. i would like to divide the file. it i do not want to support this part of the file. i would like to have the upper charity to vote against this one section. it would be a vote against line 6, line 15. my motion would be to strike out on page 15 -- on line 15, including hours of employment, i would put a period right there and the rest of that section will vote out. but our right to vote for the underlying ordinance. >> i want to thank supervisor avalos and to revise our camp for pointing out this issue. -- and supervisor kim for pointing out this issue. does this happen to be language that was placed in this section of the police code years ago. and to make it clear what it says is that individuals that

for the ordinance. that 6734, it will be official misconduct. high view that it was sort of the signaling and that for elected officials, there can be no question about whether or not it constitutes official misconduct for purposes of the charter provision and that talks about the implications ahead. and 6735 is the paragraph that deals with enforcement. and under that, if you wanted to go and get some preventive relief at the front and, you fail to notice them meeting properly. trying to get the documents, you had to go to court to do that. if the procedure had been exhausted, the question is if they have to exhaust them, the complaint and would have a right to go to court or to the ethics commission. i see nothing in that the section that limits the ability of a complaint to come to the ethics commission to only consider a willful misconduct. the fact that i say that we have the jurisdiction, i respectfully, with all due respect to the staff that i agree with, does a wonderful job and is over-worked as it is. i can't agree with their conclusio

but the reality is that this ordinance is a live one. it's a live one because we have committed people in every aspect of the city and in the private sector working with contractors, the subcontractors to the enforcement staff of our office of economic and workforce development, our city build leadership, our departments, as well as the workers themselves believing that we're all watching each other with the very clear hope that we want to accomplish. that's why we get good results. we're breathing life into an ordinance that had in the past been simply good strong language of faith. and so breathing life into it means everybody has goals to be accomplished. the most important goal, though, in my opinion, is not so much the ordinance, not so much the departments because we all have jobs, it's the people who didn't have a job a year ago now transforming their lives and giving hope to their families as well as they come here. that's the real transformation that we wanted to have happen. that's the real performance, because when we do that,

president chiu: this ordinance is passed. >> item 6 is an ordinance amending the transportation code regarding clipper car regulations. -- clipper card regulations. >> this is a very simple item and i want to thank the mta for their work on this. this is something i have been wondering about for many years. which is why many writers cannot get on the buses through all doors. -- muni riders cannot get on the buses do all doors. there have been newspaper articles about this. we want to make sure our muni buses moved faster than 8 miles per hour, these are ordinance that would eliminate restrictions. to be able to use clipper card technology to ensure that everyone is paying a fare. i do hope you will supportive. assuming that this passes, this will go into effect july 1. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. president chiu: this ordinance is passed on the first reading. >>

but that is not the language of the ordinance. it says with enforcement, and that leaves me dangling. with this language i would have said, wait, to do what? so i am left saying, you are right, it is very clear, with enforcement power, we are one of them, whenever it concludes one of us, and it tails off, leaving me with that question that is so important about where we pick up our responsibility. i'm sure that i now have to go to our authority. this talks about the task force's authority. i have to find the second part of that passed through these woods by saying, well, i got it, and the information with the authority, but what is it the ethics commission is supposed to do? i am left feeling this does not tell me, so i have to look at the ethics commission. 's authority, and we did not have something that just says you can and for somebody else's findings. that takes me back to feeling, or do began, commissioner, is a logical place -- the effect of the task force finding is to shift the burden. it brings it to us with a finding,

these ordinances are to help to address the situation in these neighborhoods. item 18 helps to legislate the aspects of the transportation code that need to change in the mta's draft tour bus policy. item number 19 held to address the fact that when you have open airbuses with amplified sounds, we need some level of regulation to make sure the volume on those bosses are kept to respect to levels. with that, colleagues, i would like to ask for your support. >> items 18 and 19, roll call vote. [roll-call vote] there are 11 ayes. supervisor chiu: the items are approved. i want to welcome back to the board chamber, former supervisor harry writ. if we could now move to item number 20. >> item number 20. resolution: 1) granting revocable permission to the public utilities commission to occupy a portion of the public right-of-way on redwood street, approximately 150 feet west of polk street to construct and maintain an outdoor play area accessible to a child care facility within the new building at 525 golden gate avenue (assessor's block no. 0766, lot no. 001); and 2

so the sunshine ordinance task force was just basically trying to be fair.ebody that oh, your complaint isn't valid, i mean, before you even have a chance to put your case together, they're telling you that we don't want to hear you, we're going to defend the city whether they're right or wrong. and the other thing, too, is you have one attorney, the city attorney, that just chooses to ignore the sunshine ordinance task force and kind of like ignore what the other attorneys -- sunshine ordinance task force has several attorneys. they made a decision, as well. and the city attorney just didn't even want to talk with them. chairperson kim: thank you. is there any other public comment on the item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. so, colleagues, we have a lot of amazing applicants and i want to thank everyone who sat through our rules committee with us today. i'm incredibly impressed by the high level of

so the sunshine ordinance task force was just basically trying to be fair.ebody that oh, your complaint isn't valid, i mean, before you even have a chance to put your case together, they're telling you that we don't want to hear you, we're going to defend the city whether they're right or wrong. and the other thing, too, is you have one attorney, the city attorney, that just chooses to ignore the sunshine ordinance task force and kind of like ignore what the other attorneys -- sunshine ordinance task force has several attorneys. they made a decision, as well. and the city attorney just didn't even want to talk with them. chairperson kim: thank you. is there any other public comment on the

this ordinance began -- this process began with an ordinance, followed by actions of this commission, and additional proposals from supervisor winer anener and kim. when this commission heard that ordinance, it recognized both -- to encourage the production of student housing and protection of the existing housing stock. satisfying this requirement is expensive at over $53,000 per unit. the next step, land-use controls. the ordinance provided exemption, a recognize the difference between student housing and other residential uses, but it did not establish a system of land use controls. the condition -- the commission asked staff to follow up. you decided worst in housing should be permitted, established a definition -- you decided where student housing should be permitted, and established a definition. it should not be converted from existing units. your action applied to all housing types, from single- family, apartment buildings. sros were not singled out at that time. the supervisors amendments, we are here today to discuss the prohibition on conversion of existing housing. convers

as these amendments were substantial, the ordinance was amended and continued. it was this week without public comment and recommended to the full board for approval. the big item this week was articles 10 and 11. this ordinance was introduced by supervisor wiener and co- sponsored by supervisor olague. this commission provided their own comments on february 2nd. overall, your commission and the historic preservation commission held 25 hearings on this issue. monday's hearing, after opening remarks, but director ram and supervisor wiener included the comments of both commissions. it was largely an issue aligned with what the historic preservation commission also wanted. the only change is since your review of the ordinance was too affordable housing. the commission had asked the supervisor to work with planning staff to clarify what projects would qualify him what criteria would be used. after lengthy public comment, the ordinance related amendments for it with a positive recommendation for the full board. supervisor cohen and wiener voted in full support and su

the sunshine ordinance, transparency in government in general, is incredibly important. it is equally important that we have a sunshine ordinance have scores that has the credibility -- task force that has the credibility to administer this ordinance in a way that improves transparency in our government and improved accountability. -- and improved accountability. unfortunately, the current task force -- and improves accountability. unfortunately, the current task force has undermined faith in current government in several ways. if you look at the reaction to the audit that i had requested the budget analyst to do, it was just an extraordinary response. instead of the knowledge and that the task force, like every other body in government, is subject to the suburbs -- sunshine ordinance, scrutiny, and audits like every other department, the response was -- how dare you shine some light on us. the sunshine or dance task force is subject to sunshine like anyone else. that reaction is so telling about the this functionality of the current composition of the task force. but it

the san francisco civil rights ordinance is officially signed into law.ave been the coalition coordinator for the past two years and have seen firsthand the committee's efforts and inspiring bravery to bring us here today. i have also seen as support of elected officials and allies in the community. please help me in welcoming a few of these people to share this perspective today. help me recognized supervisor jane kim, the sponsor of the organizers -- of the ordinance. [applause] >> thank you. i cannot believe we are finally here. it has been a really long journey. the for our office, i know we came on board in august when we started working with the saved san francisco coalition. but for the coalition it has been an even longer journey. the starting in 2001, but really, the organizing that has happened in the last couple of years working with the police commission, the human rights commission, and organizing amongst community residents and community leaders that you see here today. we are taking an historic step here in san francisco. we are now the sec

the first amendment guarantees the right of freedom of speech and i think the sunshine ordinance and the brown act both go to support and ensure that members of the public that wish to participate in public meetings are able to do so and to make comments including those meeting predicted the protection which are descending comments. the right to petition government for redress of grievances in most cases is going to demand that unless you are making wild accusations, you have the public records so that you can proof and show that what you are saying has a basis in fact but the california public records act and the sunshine ordinance are there to establish the right of a citizens access to the necessary public records so that they can put forward a cogent case to support what they are presenting. one question that the task force members can say, yes, something that is one of his bugaboos, i asked him to consider their performance in the light of what have you done to support the right of a citizen to speak freely at public meetings and what have you done to support the right of public

there has been a lot of talk about a sanctuary ordinance. it has been in the news and a national debate. we want to remind you what it is about. first of all, the sanctuary ordinance was created back in 1989. it just had its 20-year anniversary. the human rights commission is named as the enforcement agency in the sanctuary ordinance. what that means is that no city employee or no city resources can go towards helping ice or referring anybody to ice or disclosing any information to ice. it was meant to give people equal access to services, equal access to the city without any fear of retribution, any fear of retaliation, any fear of having their status being basically disclosed, and being deported for wanting to get health care. so it is a really important thing for us to remember that as we are thinking about comprehensive immigration reform, that we also continue to strengthen and defend sanctuary ordinance not just here in san francisco, where it has been under a lot of pressure and discussion and a lot of debate, bull also all over the c

secondly, i think we would like to hear what you would continue to prioritize on the sunshine ordinancek force, whether you are existing or a new applicant. i will call you up in the order you are listed on the agenda. i did get e-mail from several folks who did not make it today -- we did have one who has withdrawn his application. that is khurshid khoja. we do appreciate your brevity. >> thank you. a lawyer with brevity. i am ben rosenfeld. i am a lawyer of 12 years and a san francisco resident for 13. before that time, i was in private practice. i focused mostly on civil rights, and within that arena, mostly section 1983 civil rights work, bringing cases related to first and fourth amendment rights. i have done a certain amount of open government related practice. cases for the california public records act. i appeared as an attorney before the sunshine task force and i relied very heavily on open the government's -- open government laws. in addition, i am an original board member of a committee that is 8 years old. i have had a lot of experience as an administrator, essentially as a

i think it would help with the ordinance task force as well. during the past five years -- i have lived in the city for almost six years -- i have really developed a passion for this city and what it is all about and its values. i was at the symphony on monday night and in closing its said those that can, do. those that can do more, a volunteer. i think we can fix the training and education part. i think i feel good about the elements i can bring to the education part of the system. even changing the structure of the meetings. and televising the meetings would also be helpful. thank you. i appreciate your thoughtful consideration. >> thank you. and we have bruce wolfe and then karens to waft -- karen sssue rolf. >> good afternoon. my name is bruce. i worked as an advocate in helping to protect our children from very pointed out all adds that could lead them down -- ac ohol ads that could lead them down the wrong road. i appreciate your consideration for appointment to the task force. i feel that i fill the requirements of seat number eight, whi

this ordinance really needs to be looked at again. thank you. >> members of the commission, i am the policy manager at the turn a community developed -- chinatown community development center. chinatown is a principal housing stock. we're very concerned about preserving the housing. for existing residence and for future low-income seniors and families. i think the testimony today underscores the need for this legislation. i think the testimony in terms of expansion of universities and the expansion of the student population, and their demand for housing, not necessarily in the neighborhood in terms of the downtown core area, where there is a plan for building that housing in serving that increased need. moreover, we have heard from the testimony from before is that -- is how many potentially making units there are in the housing stock. there's a lot of interest on the part of our owners to convert to student housing. for that reason, it seems to me that the legislation and the staff report is timely. we are under constant change. and